Firearms

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, here is an example of what I'm talking about.

Today there was a 13-person killing committed by more than one person in Washington, D.C. Ignoring that more people are killed in inner cities by handguns in a day than was killed in DC at this particular shooting spree, let's examine Senator Feinstein's points.

Without getting into any details, Senator Feinstein stated:

There are reports the killer was armed with an AR-15, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol when he stormed an American military installation in the nation’s capital and took at least 12 innocent lives.
This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/feins ... -shooting/

A shotgun and a semi-automatic pistol were never made illegal or otherwise prohibited from being sold in the United States. The latest proposals for gun bans included a new assault weapons ban (last implemented by President Clinton's administration and allowed to lapse under President Bush II). The AR-15, which the California senator calls a military-style assault rifle, was also not banned under the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the previous AWB, the following features, which were applicable to the AR-15 among other weapons, were banned: collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs.

The AR-15 was first sold to the U.S. military, so Senator Feinstein might be correct. Except, as noted in the link below, Colt (the manufacturer) began selling a semi-automatic version of the rifle to civilians in 1963. Therefore, Senator Feinstein is not correct. This is not a military-style rifle. This is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#United_States

Again, I'm not arguing that this weapon should not be banned. Rather, I'm arguing that current proposals to ban certain aspects of this weapon ("We don't want to make our deadly weapons look too scary) are absurd political pandering. Most homicides in the United States are committed using handguns, not semi-automatic weapons, rifles or shotguns. Why are there no proposals to ban handguns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushom ... weapon.svg

I ultimately have no problem banning guns (but only if guns are banned for police as well), but all this political pandering, fear-mongering, and lack of factual data bothers me.

Believe it or not, I appreciate your point. I entered the thread with a similar point of annoyance- that knife crime rates in the UK were being used as a point of comparison, taken as fact, with gun homicide rates in the US.

I don't personally agree with your take on this- you seem overly concerned with US legalistic definitions of what constitutes an assault rifle, and, of course, you ran into trouble even as you were typing out your argument, the definitions being somewhat fluid, and as with the Mexico stats I posted above, a bit of a sideshow when part of Feinstein's point is that she wants such weapons to be considered under law as such.

But I'm not here to defend Feinstein. She seems to have a fair point to me, but I know little about her or her positions.

[thegreekdog]

I don't personally agree with your take on this- you seem overly concerned with US legalistic definitions of what constitutes an assault rifle, and, of course, you ran into trouble even as you were typing out your argument, the definitions being somewhat fluid, and as with the Mexico stats I posted above, a bit of a sideshow when part of Feinstein's point is that she wants such weapons to be considered under law as such.

I guess that's where our thoughts on the good senator differ. I don't think she wants AR-15 rifles (or any other rifles) to be banned.

[Symmetry]

I don't personally agree with your take on this- you seem overly concerned with US legalistic definitions of what constitutes an assault rifle, and, of course, you ran into trouble even as you were typing out your argument, the definitions being somewhat fluid, and as with the Mexico stats I posted above, a bit of a sideshow when part of Feinstein's point is that she wants such weapons to be considered under law as such.

I guess that's where our thoughts on the good senator differ. I don't think she wants AR-15 rifles (or any other rifles) to be banned.

As I kind of tried to point out, I know very little about her, beyond that she seems to be kind of a Republican bugbear, so I can only engage on her take up to a certain point. The argument you presented from her, and your critique of it, seemed a little off to me. As did the points you highlighted in my argument about Mexican cartels.

I appreciate a good pedant, and you've known me on this forum long enough to know I'm pedantic, but I feel you may have lost your way in terms of what you consider to be important when it comes to gun crimes.

I do think I'm being a bit ungenerous here. I think you're also concerned about the way that the law applies and defines this, so I can only point out that when you highlighted the important parts of that post on the cartels and found only a potential problem with the language, you might have missed the forest for the trees.

[thegreekdog]

I don't personally agree with your take on this- you seem overly concerned with US legalistic definitions of what constitutes an assault rifle, and, of course, you ran into trouble even as you were typing out your argument, the definitions being somewhat fluid, and as with the Mexico stats I posted above, a bit of a sideshow when part of Feinstein's point is that she wants such weapons to be considered under law as such.

I guess that's where our thoughts on the good senator differ. I don't think she wants AR-15 rifles (or any other rifles) to be banned.

As I kind of tried to point out, I know very little about her, beyond that she seems to be kind of a Republican bugbear, so I can only engage on her take up to a certain point. The argument you presented from her, and your critique of it, seemed a little off to me. As did the points you highlighted in my argument about Mexican cartels.

I appreciate a good pedant, and you've known me on this forum long enough to know I'm pedantic, but I feel you may have lost your way in terms of what you consider to be important when it comes to gun crimes.

I do think I'm being a bit ungenerous here. I think you're also concerned about the way that the law applies and defines this, so I can only point out that when you highlighted the important parts of that post on the cartels and found only a potential problem with the language, you might have missed the forest for the trees.

In the context of the U.S. political process, I think I'm probably most focused on the forest.

Senator Feinstein, and other gun control advocates in Congress, are not concerned with gun crimes. Rather, they are concerned with being re-elected. Perhaps that's where you and I differ. I've yet to see anyone make a serious proposal that would substantially reduce gun crimes or spree shootings, including Senator Feinstein. The reason is because they need this particular bugbear (to borrow your term). And the reason they can continue to use this particular bugbear is because the United States public is, for the most part, ignorant as to what the laws say that these gun control Congressfolks support.

For example, to me (and maybe to you) the assault weapons ban (from the Clinton administration) is preposterous. It's a ban on how guns look, not a ban on the guns themselves. State bans would be far more effective if nationally implemented (e.g. bans in California and DC), but we've yet to see a serious bill in Congress to support such wide-ranging bans.

The question I ask is why. I think the question you're asking is why not. And the reason that I'm asking why is because this conflict about gun control is a stupid one and not worth the general public's effort and Senator Feinstein is pandering (to be fair, any senator that lambasts Senator Feinstein, say Senator Ted Cruz, with some nonsense about constitutional rights applying to a law that makes illegal the use of a telescoping grip on a gun) is disgusting, in my opinion.

tl;dr - My message to Senator Feinstein: "Either ban all guns or shut the f*ck up, you pandering piece of shit who uses tragedy to advance your political career."

[Symmetry]

I don't personally agree with your take on this- you seem overly concerned with US legalistic definitions of what constitutes an assault rifle, and, of course, you ran into trouble even as you were typing out your argument, the definitions being somewhat fluid, and as with the Mexico stats I posted above, a bit of a sideshow when part of Feinstein's point is that she wants such weapons to be considered under law as such.

I guess that's where our thoughts on the good senator differ. I don't think she wants AR-15 rifles (or any other rifles) to be banned.

As I kind of tried to point out, I know very little about her, beyond that she seems to be kind of a Republican bugbear, so I can only engage on her take up to a certain point. The argument you presented from her, and your critique of it, seemed a little off to me. As did the points you highlighted in my argument about Mexican cartels.

I appreciate a good pedant, and you've known me on this forum long enough to know I'm pedantic, but I feel you may have lost your way in terms of what you consider to be important when it comes to gun crimes.

I do think I'm being a bit ungenerous here. I think you're also concerned about the way that the law applies and defines this, so I can only point out that when you highlighted the important parts of that post on the cartels and found only a potential problem with the language, you might have missed the forest for the trees.

In the context of the U.S. political process, I think I'm probably most focused on the forest.

Senator Feinstein, and other gun control advocates in Congress, are not concerned with gun crimes. Rather, they are concerned with being re-elected. Perhaps that's where you and I differ. I've yet to see anyone make a serious proposal that would substantially reduce gun crimes or spree shootings, including Senator Feinstein. The reason is because they need this particular bugbear (to borrow your term). And the reason they can continue to use this particular bugbear is because the United States public is, for the most part, ignorant as to what the laws say that these gun control Congressfolks support.

For example, to me (and maybe to you) the assault weapons ban (from the Clinton administration) is preposterous. It's a ban on how guns look, not a ban on the guns themselves. State bans would be far more effective if nationally implemented (e.g. bans in California and DC), but we've yet to see a serious bill in Congress to support such wide-ranging bans.

The question I ask is why. I think the question you're asking is why not. And the reason that I'm asking why is because this conflict about gun control is a stupid one and not worth the general public's effort and Senator Feinstein is pandering (to be fair, any senator that lambasts Senator Feinstein, say Senator Ted Cruz, with some nonsense about constitutional rights applying to a law that makes illegal the use of a telescoping grip on a gun) is disgusting, in my opinion.

tl;dr - My message to Senator Feinstein: "Either ban all guns or shut the f*ck up, you pandering piece of shit who uses tragedy to advance your political career."

I've never thought of gun control as being particularly problematic. I think you may have loaded the term with a bunch of political issues that you have not examined in detail. Presumably you're ok with gun control, say for example. a paranoid schizophrenic with a gang history of assaults and murders and a grudge against his ex-wife not being allowed to purchase a full military grade assault rifle with depleted uranium ammo.

That's not drawn from a specific example, by the way, merely to point out that if you don't support gun control at all, you're being a bit of a nut.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

[Borderdawg]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

Handgun hunting is quite popular, especially with revolvers. One can hunt everything from small game, rabbits and squirrels and such, big game, deer, elk, bear, etc., and everything in between. I've taken coyote and a couple of deer with a .357 magnum, and killed lots of vermin (rats, possum, feral cats) with a .22 pistol. Also, many rifle and bow hunters carry a sidearm for backup, and to administer a final kill shot if need be.

And may I ask, don't ya'll think a lot of your unreasoning fear and hatred of firearms comes from a lack of knowledge, education and training? I'm not saying you're stupid, just that some of you are speaking of things about which you have little knowledge, and absolutely no practical experience. A firearm is a tool, no more (or less) dangerous than a chainsaw. If you aren't familiar with it, you shouldn't mess with it. And you damn sure shouldn't try to regulate something you don't understand, just because it frightens you. Learn about firearms. Go to a range, most have weapons for rent. Take a quick orientation class, familiarize yourself with some firearms, then let loose a few rounds downrange. Who know, ya might like it! And if you don't, at least you will have a better understanding of what you fear/hate/distrust. And remember, Keep Your Powder Dry, Pilgrim.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

Handgun hunting is quite popular, especially with revolvers. One can hunt everything from small game, rabbits and squirrels and such, big game, deer, elk, bear, etc., and everything in between. I've taken coyote and a couple of deer with a .357 magnum, and killed lots of vermin (rats, possum, feral cats) with a .22 pistol. Also, many rifle and bow hunters carry a sidearm for backup, and to administer a final kill shot if need be.

And may I ask, don't ya'll think a lot of your unreasoning fear and hatred of firearms comes from a lack of knowledge, education and training? I'm not saying you're stupid, just that some of you are speaking of things about which you have little knowledge, and absolutely no practical experience. A firearm is a tool, no more (or less) dangerous than a chainsaw. If you aren't familiar with it, you shouldn't mess with it. And you damn sure shouldn't try to regulate something you don't understand, just because it frightens you. Learn about firearms. Go to a range, most have weapons for rent. Take a quick orientation class, familiarize yourself with some firearms, then let loose a few rounds downrange. Who know, ya might like it! And if you don't, at least you will have a better understanding of what you fear/hate/distrust. And remember, Keep Your Powder Dry, Pilgrim.

I suppose I do have a fear of firearms to a certain extent (at least when it comes to personal use). Nevertheless, there is no question that guns (handguns specifically) are used in violent crimes and that banning them will lead, eventually, to a drop in such violent crimes. I'm not talking about a gun accidentally going off at someone's house because they didn't lock the case correctly. I'm talking about a gangbanger in Philadelphia shooting me in the face. That gangbanger most likely got the gun by having his significant other or a friend purchase the gun legally and then give it to him. So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

[Phatscotty]

[isaiah40]

I suppose I do have a fear of firearms to a certain extent (at least when it comes to personal use). Nevertheless, there is no question that guns (handguns specifically) are used in violent crimes and that banning them will lead, eventually, to a drop in such violent crimes. I'm not talking about a gun accidentally going off at someone's house because they didn't lock the case correctly. I'm talking about a gangbanger in Philadelphia shooting me in the face. That gangbanger most likely got the gun by having his significant other or a friend purchase the gun legally and then give it to him. So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

So if Philadelphia passes very strict gun laws like Chicago has, you would feel a whole lot safer???

[patrickaa317]

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Fallen behind on this thread so I apologize if I'm missing a bunch of context but it sounds like it's not the guns alone that scare you, it's more the culture and crime of the city of Philadelphia. Wouldn't it be better to try to decrease the crime and culture rather than the tool used? Where is BBS to discuss markets and substitutes.

Why would you want to ruin my right/privilege of owning or buying a handgun because you live in a city where you are afraid of them?

[Phatscotty]

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Try to find a way to protect yourself.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

I didn't intend to suggest that you were the one who loaded the issue. Merely that by using the term "gun control" you were employing a loaded term that makes little sense when even cursorily examined. Most people are for gun control, the terms of how they should be controlled is the issue, not the idea there should be control at all.

[thegreekdog]

I suppose I do have a fear of firearms to a certain extent (at least when it comes to personal use). Nevertheless, there is no question that guns (handguns specifically) are used in violent crimes and that banning them will lead, eventually, to a drop in such violent crimes. I'm not talking about a gun accidentally going off at someone's house because they didn't lock the case correctly. I'm talking about a gangbanger in Philadelphia shooting me in the face. That gangbanger most likely got the gun by having his significant other or a friend purchase the gun legally and then give it to him. So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

So if Philadelphia passes very strict gun laws like Chicago has, you would feel a whole lot safer???

No.

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Fallen behind on this thread so I apologize if I'm missing a bunch of context but it sounds like it's not the guns alone that scare you, it's more the culture and crime of the city of Philadelphia. Wouldn't it be better to try to decrease the crime and culture rather than the tool used? Where is BBS to discuss markets and substitutes.

Why would you want to ruin my right/privilege of owning or buying a handgun because you live in a city where you are afraid of them?

Yes to your first one. Because I don't care about you (no offense intended) to the second one.

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Try to find a way to protect yourself.

Okay.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

I didn't intend to suggest that you were the one who loaded the issue. Merely that by using the term "gun control" you were employing a loaded term that makes little sense when even cursorily examined. Most people are for gun control, the terms of how they should be controlled is the issue, not the idea there should be control at all.

Yes, and my point is that politicians who use the term gun control are using it with the stated purpose of reducing gun crimes when the gun control laws those same politicians are proposing won't do that. This is not that hard to understand.

[patrickaa317]

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Fallen behind on this thread so I apologize if I'm missing a bunch of context but it sounds like it's not the guns alone that scare you, it's more the culture and crime of the city of Philadelphia. Wouldn't it be better to try to decrease the crime and culture rather than the tool used? Where is BBS to discuss markets and substitutes.

Why would you want to ruin my right/privilege of owning or buying a handgun because you live in a city where you are afraid of them?

Yes to your first one. Because I don't care about you (no offense intended) to the second one.

It's amazing to see how quick you are to throw out other people's rights, especially seeing as you admit yourself you are more concerned about culture than guns. I guess that's how the entire populace is today, "What benefits me the best regardless what it does to the rest of society?" That's how we end up with every subsidy under the sun, a majority of population getting a piece of the government pie, etc.

[thegreekdog]

So, that is what concerns me - getting killed by a gun in Philadelphia. And since people in Philadelphia are killed by guns on a fairly regular basis, I think my fear is justified. I suppose if I still lived in central Pennsylvania, I wouldn't have the same fears.

Fallen behind on this thread so I apologize if I'm missing a bunch of context but it sounds like it's not the guns alone that scare you, it's more the culture and crime of the city of Philadelphia. Wouldn't it be better to try to decrease the crime and culture rather than the tool used? Where is BBS to discuss markets and substitutes.

Why would you want to ruin my right/privilege of owning or buying a handgun because you live in a city where you are afraid of them?

Yes to your first one. Because I don't care about you (no offense intended) to the second one.

It's amazing to see how quick you are to throw out other people's rights, especially seeing as you admit yourself you are more concerned about culture than guns. I guess that's how the entire populace is today, "What benefits me the best regardless what it does to the rest of society?" That's how we end up with every subsidy under the sun, a majority of population getting a piece of the government pie, etc.

For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore the theory that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not a collective right (I believe it is a collective right). So let's assume it's an individual right. There are two separate and distinct lines of thought. The first is a "theoretical" line of thought. The second is a "realistic" line of thought. Let's discuss the realistic line of thought first.

Real World

In the real world (one inhabited by politicians), current gun control proposals do little in the way of actually banning guns or taking away any individual rights to own firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban (under the Clinton administration) did little actual gun-banning; rather, it limited how certain firearms looked. I could not find any studies indicating the effectiveness of the Assault Weapons Ban on curbing gun deaths; similarly, the Assault Weapons Ban did not affect handguns, which are by far the highest-used weapon in homicides in the United States. So, from a "gun control advocate" perspective, the current, past, and proposed gun control laws have little to no effect on gun violence.

From a gun advocate perspective, the current, past and proposed gun control laws (federal) also have little effect on gun ownership. As a gun advocate (or gun rights advocate), your argument is that a law infringes upon your 2nd amendment rights because you can no longer have a scope and a longer grip; that seems silly to me.

Basically, I don't get the hysterical nature of the argument from a practical perspective. Gun control advocates in Congress are not offering any real solutions to gun violence since they don't affect guns used in gun violence (handguns). Gun advocates in Congress are fighting these "non-solutions" tooth and nail even though they don't actually prohibit any kind of gun ownership. My conclusion is, therefore, that gun control advocates (like Senator Feinstein) and gun advocates are using the gun control debate as political clout. These politicians would like this issue to never go away, otherwise they lose their hot button topic and therefore lose relevance.

Theoretical World

In theory, I'm in favor of complete and total removal of all guns in the United States, including government ownership of guns with the exception of the military (for defense purposes only). Obviously, I would prefer that the criminal culture in the United States change before removing guns, but guns are effective in what they do (one can kill more people with a gun than with a knife) and removing them would affect violent crime in a positive way.

Ultimately, the theoretical world is theoretical and I expect that guns will never be banned on a national level in the United States, so it's a moot point.

My World

The third item, which I did not list above, is what happens in thegreekdog's world. In my world, gun violence is a concern mostly for selfish reasons. I don't want to be killed by a gun in Philadelphia walking to work. It is not so concerning that I've quit my job or requested a transfer or carry a gun myself, and I'm not stupid enough to think banning guns in Philadelphia would mean criminals wouldn't get guns easily from another jurisdiction and bring them to Philadelphia.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

I didn't intend to suggest that you were the one who loaded the issue. Merely that by using the term "gun control" you were employing a loaded term that makes little sense when even cursorily examined. Most people are for gun control, the terms of how they should be controlled is the issue, not the idea there should be control at all.

Yes, and my point is that politicians who use the term gun control are using it with the stated purpose of reducing gun crimes when the gun control laws those same politicians are proposing won't do that. This is not that hard to understand.

Do you really believe that gun control laws don't reduce gun crime? Would you be ok with allowing totally free gun ownership? Would you get on a plane knowing that there was nothing preventing a guy with an assault rifle boarding loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

Do you not think that helps prevent crime, the whole don't take your AK on planes thing?

I wonder, if there weren't so much of the crazy right wing agenda saying that gun control is bad, and specifically targeting more liberal politicians, would you argue similarly against driving licenses?

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

I didn't intend to suggest that you were the one who loaded the issue. Merely that by using the term "gun control" you were employing a loaded term that makes little sense when even cursorily examined. Most people are for gun control, the terms of how they should be controlled is the issue, not the idea there should be control at all.

Yes, and my point is that politicians who use the term gun control are using it with the stated purpose of reducing gun crimes when the gun control laws those same politicians are proposing won't do that. This is not that hard to understand.

Do you really believe that gun control laws don't reduce gun crime? Would you be ok with allowing totally free gun ownership? Would you get on a plane knowing that there was nothing preventing a guy with an assault rifle boarding loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

Do you not think that helps prevent crime, the whole don't take your AK on planes thing?

I wonder, if there weren't so much of the crazy right wing agenda saying that gun control is bad, and specifically targeting more liberal politicians, would you argue similarly against driving licenses?

See red type - Which gun control laws?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I'm the one who has loaded the term with political issues; I leave that to the politicians. It seems fairly straightforward to ban weapons that are used primarily in crimes (e.g. handguns). Handguns are not used for hunting (to my knowledge) and are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. So why no ban (in the context of being able to ban assault weapons)?

I didn't intend to suggest that you were the one who loaded the issue. Merely that by using the term "gun control" you were employing a loaded term that makes little sense when even cursorily examined. Most people are for gun control, the terms of how they should be controlled is the issue, not the idea there should be control at all.

Yes, and my point is that politicians who use the term gun control are using it with the stated purpose of reducing gun crimes when the gun control laws those same politicians are proposing won't do that. This is not that hard to understand.

Do you really believe that gun control laws don't reduce gun crime? Would you be ok with allowing totally free gun ownership? Would you get on a plane knowing that there was nothing preventing a guy with an assault rifle boarding loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

Do you not think that helps prevent crime, the whole don't take your AK on planes thing?

I wonder, if there weren't so much of the crazy right wing agenda saying that gun control is bad, and specifically targeting more liberal politicians, would you argue similarly against driving licenses?

See red type - Which gun control laws?

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

[thegreekdog]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

[Symmetry]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

Ah, you're back to your beef with Feinstein. I thought we fairly covered that. If your objection is to what you consider her hidden motives, perhaps start a thread. I would be interested in finding out what got you so pissed off about her.

If we're still talking about gun control, then that's an example of gun control that I support, and that makes me think that people who say they hate gun control are pretty idiotic.

[thegreekdog]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

Ah, you're back to your beef with Feinstein. I thought we fairly covered that. If your objection is to what you consider her hidden motives, perhaps start a thread. I would be interested in finding out what got you so pissed off about her.

If we're still talking about gun control, then that's an example of gun control that I support, and that makes me think that people who say they hate gun control are pretty idiotic.

I was under the impression that the debat about gun control was about proposed laws that did not yet exist that may propose to deal with, for example, the murders that happened in D.C. last week. That seems to be what this thread (and I think every other thread in this forum about gun control) is about. To rehash (for the third time here) I'm concerned that Senator Feinstein and her ilk are not concerned with gun violence given their lack of proposing effective laws. If there are effective laws that they are proposing, please let's hear about them. And I'm concerned about gun advocates and their lik who are conerned with gun control proposals that aren't actually banning guns. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I guess you're talking about gun control laws that already exist; maybe you should start a thread on that to see how many folks agree that the current ban on automatic rifles on airplanes is appropriate or not. Maybe see if you can start a thread on the constitutionality of a ban on tanks too.

[Symmetry]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

Ah, you're back to your beef with Feinstein. I thought we fairly covered that. If your objection is to what you consider her hidden motives, perhaps start a thread. I would be interested in finding out what got you so pissed off about her.

If we're still talking about gun control, then that's an example of gun control that I support, and that makes me think that people who say they hate gun control are pretty idiotic.

I was under the impression that the debat about gun control was about proposed laws that did not yet exist that may propose to deal with, for example, the murders that happened in D.C. last week. That seems to be what this thread (and I think every other thread in this forum about gun control) is about. To rehash (for the third time here) I'm concerned that Senator Feinstein and her ilk are not concerned with gun violence given their lack of proposing effective laws. If there are effective laws that they are proposing, please let's hear about them. And I'm concerned about gun advocates and their lik who are conerned with gun control proposals that aren't actually banning guns. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I guess you're talking about gun control laws that already exist; maybe you should start a thread on that to see how many folks agree that the current ban on automatic rifles on airplanes is appropriate or not. Maybe see if you can start a thread on the constitutionality of a ban on tanks too.

Do you support gun control or don't you?

[thegreekdog]

Are you under the impression that it's legal to board a passenger jet with an assault rifle loaded up with armour piercing bullets?

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that there is currently a bill in Congress or a proposed bill banning the use of an assault rifle on an airplane? Is that what Senator Feinstein was talking about?

Ah, you're back to your beef with Feinstein. I thought we fairly covered that. If your objection is to what you consider her hidden motives, perhaps start a thread. I would be interested in finding out what got you so pissed off about her.

If we're still talking about gun control, then that's an example of gun control that I support, and that makes me think that people who say they hate gun control are pretty idiotic.

I was under the impression that the debat about gun control was about proposed laws that did not yet exist that may propose to deal with, for example, the murders that happened in D.C. last week. That seems to be what this thread (and I think every other thread in this forum about gun control) is about. To rehash (for the third time here) I'm concerned that Senator Feinstein and her ilk are not concerned with gun violence given their lack of proposing effective laws. If there are effective laws that they are proposing, please let's hear about them. And I'm concerned about gun advocates and their lik who are conerned with gun control proposals that aren't actually banning guns. I thought I made that pretty clear.

I guess you're talking about gun control laws that already exist; maybe you should start a thread on that to see how many folks agree that the current ban on automatic rifles on airplanes is appropriate or not. Maybe see if you can start a thread on the constitutionality of a ban on tanks too.

Do you support gun control or don't you?

I support effective gun control. It has not yet been proposed by gun control advocates who prefer to preen and get re-elected than support effective gun control.

There, two sentences. Hope it helps.